Where would we be, as journalists and news consumers, without LinkedIn and its members' penchant for listing upcoming projects and pending accomplishments well before the public relations gatekeepers are ready to officially announce them? This time around, we have Microsoft group product planner Praveen Rutnam's LinkedIn page to thank. Rutman's profile contained word that the company is apparently "develop[ing a] strategy to further monetize Xbox LIVE subscriber base that will be implemented for holiday 2012."

It's impossible to say what exact form this monetization strategy will take, and Microsoft hasn't immediately responded to a request for comment. That doesn't mean we can't start speculating wildly about it.

Perhaps Microsoft is planning a new, higher-priced premium tier for Xbox Live membership; one that offers subscribers discounted or free access to Xbox Live Arcade games, downloadable content, and online passes. Or maybe Microsoft will go the other way, offering a lower-priced tier below the current $59.99 annual Xbox Live Gold subscription that offers access to popular services like Netflix, Facebook, and Twitter without the online gaming capabilities. The change could even simply clear the way for Xbox Live to start offering those microtransaction-fueled free-to-play titles the industry seems so crazy about these days.

Whatever the change, Microsoft had better be careful not to make its current customers feel ripped off. When the company increased the annual fee for Xbox Live Gold by roughly 20 percent in the summer of 2010—the first such price increase since the system's launch in 2005—many gamers were quick to complain about price gouging and unreasonable fees.

The prices at the local subway increased by about a $1 per sandwich; at least that's what I gathered from my friend whining about it. Well, I learned a long time ago how to make my own sandwiches, so the cost didn't bother me. I also learned a long time ago that subscription service prices can fluctuate, that's why I love PC games (the ones with the free servers).

Inflation hits everyone, so you can either whine about it, deal with it, or find an alternate route.

I'm done with console systems. This generation has been nickel-and-diming me to death, and I don't see it changing with the next set of systems.

What nickel and diming? I paid for a gaming console, same as last gen. I bought games, same as last gen. I bought DLC, more so this gen, but I didnt buy anything where I didnt feel I was getting my money's worth.

I have not been nickel and dimed... unless the xbox live subscription cost is what your talking about - but that's subjective regardless of what is or is not available on my hot rod gaming pc. (well, less hot rod since the 680 came out *drools*)

What nickel and diming? I paid for a gaming console, same as last gen. I bought games, same as last gen. I bought DLC, more so this gen, but I didnt buy anything where I didnt feel I was getting my money's worth.

I have not been nickel and dimed... unless the xbox live subscription cost is what your talking about...

Even that's exactly the same as last gen (except for the price increase) but prices have increased across the board for society the last couple of years.

People are only nickle and dimed when they choose to be. The rest is failed marketing.

If it was inflation then MS would have been affected and would not be earning record profits off and the only inflation that is going on is MS inflating the costs of everyone on the 360 for the same or less content.

Pay more for the same experience, if you want but don't act like MS is some kind of victim in raising prices to make more money.

I always disliked the pay to play online part of live and the changes in the past has resorted to me rarely using my 360 to the point that I am done with the xbox after this generation.

Or maybe Microsoft will go the other way, offering a lower-priced tier below the current $59.99 annual Xbox Live Gold subscription that offers access to popular services like Netflix, Facebook, and Twitter without the online gaming capabilities.

Or maybe Microsoft will go the other way, offering a lower-priced tier below the current $59.99 annual Xbox Live Gold subscription that offers access to popular services like Netflix, Facebook, and Twitter without the online gaming capabilities.

That sounds worthless

To you maybe, but Live is used more for such add-on services than for gaming.

Eh, I realize some people love that stuff, but for individuals social media is really nothing but a liability, and Netflix is $8/mo anyway and (again, IME) hard to justify after about 2 months on its own.

None of what was listed is even remotely exclusive to Live, so I'd rather just drop all of it from the cost of the service and save some money on the Live exclusive services if I could.

This doesn't even sound like a leaked document. More like a resume, in which case Rutnam is placing himself in the best possible light so he can be hired somewhere else (which is what we all should be doing when we write our resumes). At the risk of being called a shill for Microsoft, shouldn't we wait to see how they plan to 'monetize the subscriber base' (if there even is one) before we all fly off into an epic bout of nerd rage?

Without that, this article and all of the comments that follow it come across as nothing but FUD and Ars does itself a terrible disservice to its readers by engaging in the wild speculation associated with it.

The DLC and online subscription are certainly attempts to nickel and dime gamers to death. I just don't subscribe and don't buy the DLC since I don't think most of it is worth it. However, the used game shenanigans are harder to avoid - the game publishers are forcing the higher expenses on that market.

Or maybe Microsoft will go the other way, offering a lower-priced tier below the current $59.99 annual Xbox Live Gold subscription that offers access to popular services like Netflix, Facebook, and Twitter without the online gaming capabilities.

That sounds worthless

To you maybe, but Live is used more for such add-on services than for gaming.

For example, in the UK, you have to buy an XBox Live Gold Subscription in order to access the "on demand" replay services for two of the four major *free-to-air* broadcast platforms (Channel 4 and Channel 5), which hacks me off no end. Only the BBC iPlayer is available without one, and that was because the BBC held firm in their refusal to allow Microsoft to charge for it, since it's entirely taxpayer funded by the TV Licence fee.

To you maybe, but Live is used more for such add-on services than for gaming.For example, in the UK, you have to buy an XBox Live Gold Subscription in order to access the "on demand" replay services for two of the four major *free-to-air* broadcast platforms (Channel 4 and Channel 5), which hacks me off no end. Only the BBC iPlayer is available without one, and that was because the BBC held firm in their refusal to allow Microsoft to charge for it, since it's entirely taxpayer funded by the TV Licence fee.

The whole issue with BBC was a joke. Microsoft just don't seem to get a grip about laws of the EU States. If you think this is bad, just hope for your own sake that you never move from the UK to another EU country, as you will find your XBOX Live account in a permanent state of Limbo. An issue that Microsoft has been dragging for years: http://itisourdata.com/

When the company increased the annual fee for Xbox Live Gold by roughly 20 percent in the summer of 2010—the first such price increase since the system's launch in 2005—many gamers were quick to complain about price gouging and unreasonable fees.

Ironic, considering charging at all for what you get with Live is price gouging and unreasonable fees.

I am the only one who does not mind paying xbox live subscription? I hate to sound like I am in the MS Marketing Dept, but they offer tons of content in one convinient place.

In addidion I have only paid the full price for an xbox live gold subscription once when I bought my xbox 5 years ago. Anymore I can usually find it on sale for about 35$.

Yes all the content is available for free elsewhere, and yes it bothered me at first to pay to play online. In general if is a far better service than the free PSN, great uptime, easy party chat which is something I would have gladly paid 5$ a month for when I gave up on online PC gaming 5 years ago. It is far from perfect, but it works well and it is easy. Which is really all I want from my gaming experience. Sit down and play, no headahces.

I am the only one who does not mind paying xbox live subscription? I hate to sound like I am in the MS Marketing Dept, but they offer tons of content in one convinient place.

In addidion I have only paid the full price for an xbox live gold subscription once when I bought my xbox 5 years ago. Anymore I can usually find it on sale for about 35$.

Yes all the content is available for free elsewhere, and yes it bothered me at first to pay to play online. In general if is a far better service than the free PSN, great uptime, easy party chat which is something I would have gladly paid 5$ a month for when I gave up on online PC gaming 5 years ago. It is far from perfect, but it works well and it is easy. Which is really all I want from my gaming experience. Sit down and play, no headahces.

So does my PC and my PS3, and hell, even the Wii. That PC and PS3 also give me dedicated servers for most major titles, something the 360 has for almost no titles at all, and zero major ones.

It's not about it being a lot of money, it's about it being completely unwarranted for what is provided, and requiring it for third party applications like Netflix is even more ridiculous.

The only people that don't have a problem with it seem to be those that never knew what the internet was before the original X-Box. We saw how long their attempt to charge on the PC lasted, lol

I'm done with console systems. This generation has been nickel-and-diming me to death, and I don't see it changing with the next set of systems.

What nickel and diming? I paid for a gaming console, same as last gen. I bought games, same as last gen. I bought DLC, more so this gen, but I didnt buy anything where I didnt feel I was getting my money's worth.

I have not been nickel and dimed... unless the xbox live subscription cost is what your talking about - but that's subjective regardless of what is or is not available on my hot rod gaming pc. (well, less hot rod since the 680 came out *drools*)

I agree. I don't feel like MS is nickel an diming with Live. I own all three current gen consoles and I can confidently say that Live is the BEST of the three when it comes to online service. It's easy to navigate, there isn't a freakin' update every time I try to log in (I'm talking about you PS3!), and when it does need an update it is very quick. Also, playing online via Live is just plain easier and therefore more fun. Most folks don't even consider the cost it takes to make Live work as well as it does and the annual fee is quite reasonable considering this.

The bigger issue is the cost of games. $60 is steep, especially when you consider the "extras" that you have to buy to get the full experience. It's time to drop those prices by $20 per game when purchased as a games on demand.

I'm done with console systems. This generation has been nickel-and-diming me to death, and I don't see it changing with the next set of systems.

What nickel and diming? I paid for a gaming console, same as last gen. I bought games, same as last gen. I bought DLC, more so this gen, but I didnt buy anything where I didnt feel I was getting my money's worth.

I have not been nickel and dimed... unless the xbox live subscription cost is what your talking about - but that's subjective regardless of what is or is not available on my hot rod gaming pc. (well, less hot rod since the 680 came out *drools*)

I agree. I don't feel like MS is nickel an diming with Live. I own all three current gen consoles and I can confidently say that Live is the BEST of the three when it comes to online service. It's easy to navigate, there isn't a freakin' update every time I try to log in (I'm talking about you PS3!), and when it does need an update it is very quick. Also, playing online via Live is just plain easier and therefore more fun. Most folks don't even consider the cost it takes to make Live work as well as it does and the annual fee is quite reasonable considering this.

The bigger issue is the cost of games. $60 is steep, especially when you consider the "extras" that you have to buy to get the full experience. It's time to drop those prices by $20 per game when purchased as a games on demand.

You're right, they're not nickle and diming with live: they're flat out ripping you off, by charging for free services with virtually no overhead that no one else has had the audacity, let alone the balls, to try charging for (and their attempt on the PC blew up in their face, keeping the X-Box the only pay-to-play platform without dedicated gameplay servers).

It is nickel and diming. Buy gold for netflix, pay for avatar customization, pay for name change, pay for cars in the racing games, pay extra for hdd space. There's a good reason to charge for xbox live and it's allowed them better planning on the server side. Requiring it for Netflix, etc. is completely obnoxious. I've tried it out, turns out I'm not that social and I'm not thrilled about them reporting everything I do to the world, and it's obnoxiously complicated (netflix for one thing gets updated and I have to reenter credentials constantly). Just look at the interface, it's like 8 different pages for at most 20 apps - and the 'app store' is another set of pages. Updating netflix carries a scary warning about getting logged out, why? Why log me out and in every freaking time? Why ask me every time? Searching for games brings up dozens of DLC, even videos of DLC(?), sales are hidden in links within links, and there's roughly a hundred things related to my xbox account that are reported to me. 3 different areas for game saves, locations for DLC within games, XBLA games and demos, achievements, skins, avatars, kinect profile, kinect pictures I don't know where they are but it KEEPS TAKING THEM, game installs, subscriptions, apps, wmc, system cache, points, cc#, email in my racing game, voice or text chat, which accessories to buy? PC gaming is starting to look quaint. Real racing is simpler. This is fun now?

It's great for hardcore gamers (options as always are for power users and their clans or whatever) and I'm sure it's worth $5/mo or whatever for multiplayer gaming. But if they want to grow the media side of the service and make the xbox mainstream at some point, they're going to have to offer a simpler interface or a entirely different simpler alternative, like roku, appletv and the mobile OSs. Set content up on a PC, nag about updates in a less obtrusive manner, single storage area, forget avatars, simple messaging, cloud only media player, online only store (with simple in-game purchases).

keeping the X-Box the only pay-to-play platform without dedicated gameplay servers).

Yes, because dedicated servers are great! Especially when EA turns them off after a year or so, leaving you high and dry.

A handful of games, with all of those servers paid for out of pocket by EA themselves, without a penny of compensation from MSFT, and they still require that you pay MSFT for XBL Gold in order to play them. None of those titles are flagships either (in fact, it seems to me most were sports games.)

The only X-Box or 360 title with online play that doesn't require gold is FFXI, and that game is the only exception to that, as well as a couple other rules (for example, it's the only title allowed to use keyboard and mouse for gameplay controls.)

What are they going to do now... charge you by the hour to play your x-box now?

I'm sure some exec thinks that since people are willing to pay $10/ticket to see crappy movies, they'll be willing to pay $1/hr to play video games. Give them the game for free, especially time-sinking ones like RPG's, give them no ability to alter the difficulty slider (instead, microsoft will control that, thus making the game automatically take longer by killing off players more if they're too good) ...

Look at it this way ...

Skyrim ... $60

Hours spent playing it ... 110 x $1/hr = $110

If I had gotten skyrim for free, I would have payed $110 for it due to time sunk into it instead of the static $60 and play as much as I want.

Well, not so. If I knew I was paying per-hour, I wouldn't have played so much.

Well lets see, we already pay them and EA for the privilege to play "our" games online, Maybe they will make it mandatory to have xbox live to play "our" games offline too!?

Unless EA is charging you a separate fee directly, the only thing you paid them was for a copy of the game in the first place, a one time fee (and if you bought used, you didn't even pay them for the game). MSFT doesn't pay anything to EA for the servers EA hosts to allow superior performance compared to the entirely peer-to-peer games that make up the other 99% of the console's library. MS just requires you to pay for gold anyway, just like with netflix and the rest whose only contact with the account servers is to check if you have live gold.

Ideally Online Multiplayer would be free, but Microsoft thinks that they deserve money for this so good luck to us to convince them otherwise.

I've already sold off my Xbox 360 because of issues I have with the XBL pricing and benefits structure. I am hoping to see things change fairly drastically if Microsoft is going to convince me to buy an Xbox 1080.

For example, in the UK, you have to buy an XBox Live Gold Subscription in order to access the "on demand" replay services for two of the four major *free-to-air* broadcast platforms (Channel 4 and Channel 5), which hacks me off no end. Only the BBC iPlayer is available without one, and that was because the BBC held firm in their refusal to allow Microsoft to charge for it, since it's entirely taxpayer funded by the TV Licence fee.

Microsoft trumpets all this third-party content, but neglects to mention that they've slapped a sizable surcharge on it. I had not heard about iPlayer... glad to hear the BBC stood its ground!

It's amazing that Microsoft has managed to hang on to the subscription model for Xbox Live, given the many free alternatives. Even so, I doubt this new 'monetization' stuff has anything to do with changing the subscription structure. More likely just some new kinds of advertising. Or new ways to get users to spend while they're online: pay for avatars, pay for services, pay to inhale, pay to exhale... pay... pay... pay...

The price hike in 2010 was terrible long term strategy, really. That was when I realized that I would have saved money with a Playstation 3 instead paying for Gold every year. I've been off-line for the past year. My Xbox 360 isn't even hooked up to router anymore. Paying for Xbox Live for entertainment apps makes no sense. My Blu-Ray player has Netflix for free, and it plays Blu-Rays.

The price hike in 2010 was terrible long term strategy, really. That was when I realized that I would have saved money with a Playstation 3 instead paying for Gold every year. I've been off-line for the past year. My Xbox 360 isn't even hooked up to router anymore. Paying for Xbox Live for entertainment apps makes no sense. My Blu-Ray player has Netflix for free, and it plays Blu-Rays.

So do most new TVs themselves ^^

Hell, my Bravia 3dtv tons of local channels, free music, etc., all in a nice categorically and channel-sorted list. Even has skype, facebook, and youtube (and lets me log in to youtube with my account)

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.